On 06/27/2014 04:49 PM, Yasha Karant wrote:
...
1. Is CERN linux the same as SL?
Scientific Linux CERN is what is being talked about here.
1.1 Are any of the Fermilab team doing the same as in the posting from
Singh?
...
You should read the archives of the centos-devel list and note the
number of accepted patches to the buildsystem and to packages that are
being made by persons with fnal.gov affiliation.
2,1 As Red Hat employees, one assumes their primary loyalty are to
and directions come from
their corporate employer. Is this consistent with a SL-type
distribution in which the user
community (such as the CERN LHC collaborations) have ultimate needs,
not those of a for-profit
corporation?
You know, I have to chuckle at this. SL is already driven by the needs
of Red Hat, counting by number of lines of source code (and the source
doesn't just drop out of the sky fully formed, after all; Red Hat
invests a large amount of development time building the source to begin
with, including funding developers for the upstream projects that all
Linux distributions utilize (yes, the Linux kernel itself, to which Red
Hat has done a massive amount of work)). Nothing says Red Hat's needs
and the communities' needs are not or cannot be in alignment; on the
contrary, the fact of the SL rebuild even existing shows how well Red
Hat's needs and the communities' needs are aligned. The other fact of
the matter is that both fnal and CERN have and use RHEL licenses for
other areas. The fact that Red Hat is able to turn a profit and still
so closely match the communities' needs is quite remarkable.
3. Will SL just be a SIG of CentOS?
The SL team will have to answer that one, in their own time. IOW, be
patient.
In reality, there are far more things in common between SL and CentOS
than are different, as they are after all built from almost entirely the
same source code base. It's great to see open collaboration going on in
the rebuild effort; a breath of fresh air, really.
